James H. Marx v. Go Publ'g Co., Inc., 721 F.2d 1272 (9th Cir. 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
James H. Marx v. Go Publ'g Co., Inc., 721 F.2d 1272 (9th Cir. 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
32 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sdvf, LLC v. Cozzia USA LLC
9th Cir. · 2025 · confidence medium
For example, in Marx v. Go Publishing Company, Inc., the “new judgment” language was referring to a “new judgment for statute of limitations purposes,” not a substantively new judgment. 721 F.2d 1272, 1273 (9th Cir. 1983).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fidelity National Financial, Inc. v. Friedman
D. Ariz. · 2012 · confidence medium
That assumption finds support in the Ninth Circuit’s settled view that registration of a judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1963 is “the functional equivalent of obtaining a new judgment of the registration court.” See Hilao, 536 F.3d at 989 (citing Matanuska Valley Lines, Inc. v. Molitor, 365 F.2d 358, 360 (9th Cir.1966); Marx v. Go Publ’g Co., 721 F.2d 1272, 1273 (9th Cir. 1983)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Estate of Marcos Human Rights Litigation v. Estate of Marcos
9th Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Duchek v. Jacobi, 646 F.2d 415, 417 (9th Cir.1981) (acknowledging rule that state law applies to procedures for enforcing a judgment); Marx v. Go Publ’g Co., 721 F.2d 1272, 1273 (9th Cir.1983) (applying limitations law of the registering state); Matanuska Valley Lines, Inc. v. Molitor, 365 F.2d 358, 359-60 (9th Cir.1966) (same). 6 Marx and Matanuska are particularly instructive.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hilao v. Revelstroke Investment
9th Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Duchek v. Jacobi, 646 F.2d 415, 417 (9th Cir. 1981) (acknowledging rule that state law applies to procedures for enforcing a judg- ment); Marx v. Go Publ’g Co., 721 F.2d 1272, 1273 (9th Cir. 1983) (applying limitations law of the registering state); Mat- IN RE: ESTATE OF MARCOS 9767 anuska Valley Lines, Inc. v. Molitor, 365 F.2d 358, 359-60 (9th Cir. 1966) (same).6 Marx and Matanuska are particularly instructive.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Singh v. Sidana
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
Even under California's analogue to our statutes, "the ten year period for a valid and enforceable judgment of a sister state runs anew from the time of its filing in the state superior court, provided that at the time ... the judgment is not then time barred[.]" Marx v. Go Publ'g Co., 721 F. 2d 1272, 1273 (9th Cir.1983).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Robert J. Febre
7th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Marx v. Go Publishing Company, Inc., 721 F.2d 1272, 1273 (9th Cir.1983) (California ten-year statute of limitations for enforcement of judgments runs from the date of the section 1963 registration); National Equipment Rental, Ltd. v. Polyphasic Health Systems, Inc., 490 N.E.2d 42, 46 (Ill.App.1986) (seven-year limitations period for enforcement of judgments runs from the date the foreign judgment is registered, not from the initiation of a proceeding to register the judgment). 3 III. 21 For the forgoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 1 Section 1963 was amended, ef…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Monteverde, McAlee, Fitzpatrick, Tanker, & Hurd, P.C. v. Selnick
D. Nev. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 95 F.3d 848, 850 (9th Cir.1996); see also Marx v. Go Publishing Company, Inc., 721 F.2d 1272, 1273 (9th Cir.1983) (suggesting that we have “in aid of judgment” jurisdiction); Matanuska Valley Lines, Inc. v. Molitor, 365 F.2d 358, 359 (9th Cir.1966) (same).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James H. Marx
v.
Go Publishing Company, Inc.
82-5296.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Dec 15, 1983.
721 F.2d 1272
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published

721 F.2d 1272

James H. MARX, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
GO PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 82-5296.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 30, 1983.
Decided Dec. 15, 1983.

Felice Cutler, Cutler & Cutler, Los Angeles, Cal., Gerald P. Greiman, Greensfelder & Greiman, P.C., Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee.

Philip R. Linsley, Nemecek, Gonzalez & Linsley, Sherman Oaks, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Before GOODWIN, KENNEDY and ALARCON, Circuit Judges.[*]

PER CURIAM:

[*~1272]1

We address on this appeal how the federal statute for registration of judgments from other districts interacts with a counterpart California statute and with the California statute of limitations.

2

Marx obtained judgment against Go Publishing in 1971 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The judgment was unsatisfied, and in 1980 Marx registered it in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1963. In 1982 Marx commenced proceedings in the latter court to enforce the judgment. The district court rejected Go Publishing's limitations defense, and Go Publishing now appeals. We affirm.

3

The California period of limitations for enforcement of judgments is ten years. See Cal.Code Civ.Proc. Sec. 681. Go Publishing invoked the statute as a bar to the proceedings. The issue is whether registration under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1963 creates a new judgment for statute of limitations purposes, giving the judgment-creditor ten years from the date of registration in which to satisfy the judgment. Under analogous California law, the ten year period for a valid and enforceable judgment of a sister state runs anew from the time of its filing in the state superior court, provided that at the time of registration the judgment is not then time barred and other requisites of the statute are fulfilled. Sister State and Foreign Money Judgments Act, Cal.Code Civ.Proc. Secs. 1710.10-1710.65; Cal.Code Civ.Proc. Sec. 337.5; Epps v. Russell, 62 Cal.App.3d 201, 133 Cal.Rptr. 30 (1976). Go Publishing argues, however, that this state rule is inapplicable where a district court judgment is registered under the federal statute. We disagree.

4

The California statute provides for registration of judgments of sister states, and the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1963 are its federal analogue. We discern no reason why the statute of limitations rule of the state should not apply to the federal proceeding. The registration of the district court judgment under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1963, the judgment not then being time barred, Cal.Code Civ.Proc. Sec. 337.5, commenced anew the running of the applicable statute, which is Cal.Code Civ.Proc. Sec. 681.

[*~1273]5

AFFIRMED.

*

The panel is unanimously of the opinion that oral argument is not required in this case. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)